Pakistan a Slave State Vol - 4

8/16/2019 Pakistan a Slave State Vol - 4

1/316


2/316

Pakistan A Slave State

ROEDAD KHAN

Volume - 4

Reproduced by Sani H. Panhwar


3/316

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Roedad Khan was born on September 28, 1923 into a Yusufzai Pakhtun family indistrict Mardan, in the North West Frontier Province in the village of Hoti on thebank of the Kalpani. His grand father, Karim Dad Khan, as the village Malik, wasauthorized to collect land revenue from the landowners and deposit it in thetreasury. His father, Rahim Dad Khan, was the first member of the family to besent to an English medium school. He was also the first member of the family to

join the Provincial civil service.

In 1939, Roedad Khan graduated from local high school and went to attend

Forman Christian College and gained B.A. in English Literature in 1942.Respecting his father’s wishes, Khan attended the Aligarh Muslim Universityand gained M.A. in English History in 1946. Upon his return to Mardan, Khantaught English history at Islamia College, Peshawar and opted Pakistan’scitizenship in 1947. In 1949, Khan joined Central Superior Services of Pakistanand has held several important appointments including those of Chief SecretarySindh; Secretary Ministry of Interior; Secretary General, Ministry of Interior;Federal Minister in charge of Accountability; and Advisor to the Prime Ministeron Accountability. During his long career, Khan served with five Presidents ofPakistan and three Prime ministers of Pakistan. However, his career was at peak

when he served with Chief Martial Law Administrator of Pakistan GeneralMuhammad Zia-ul-Haq, responsible for country’s internal security while anintelligence efforts were built up to sabotage Soviet military intervention inAfghanistan Soviet Republic. Khan, a part of General’s Zia policy to enhance thesecret establishment, Khan served as its elite member.

According to Khan: “During my service I got to know two Prime Ministers Benazir and Nawaz Sharif and six Presidents - Ayub Khan, Yahya Khan, Z. A. Bhutto, Zia ulHaq, Ghulam Ishaq Khan and Farooq Leghari in varying measure. They all displayedvast differences in personality, character and style. Each one of them has directly or indirectly contributed to our generation’s anguish and sense of betrayal, our loss of

confidence in our rulers, in our country, in our future, in our selves and the souring of the dream of Pakistan. Every now and then, I put pen to paper and unburden myself of the things that weigh upon my spirit: The sense of being in a blind alley, the perception of our collective guilt, and the knowledge of all that has been irrevocably lost.”

Khan has written three book and hundreds of articles, his first book “Pakistan - ADream Gone Sour ” (263 pages) was published in 1997 by Oxford University press,


4/316

his second book “The American Papers, Secret and Confidential India, Pakistan,Bangladesh, 1965-1973.” This 997 page volume contains massive compilation ofsecret and confidential documents recently declassified. And his third book is“The British Papers, Secret and Confidential; India, Pakistan, Bangladesh Documents1958-1969.”

We are reproducing some of his articles in four volumes, these articles show thein-depth knowledge and understating of the issues Pakistan has today and Khanhave suggested the solutions for most of the problems nation is facing.

I hope you will enjoy reading the articles.

Sani Panhwar

California 2013


5/316

CONTENTS

Save the Margallah Hills National Park .. .. .. .. 1

The Illusion of Power .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 4

Search for Legitimacy .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 8

Making the Rulers Accountable .. .. .. .. .. .. 11

Judging the State .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 16

A Thousand Years Ago .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 21

Pak – American Affairs A’ Amour .. .. .. .. .. 26

I Love Alex .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 30

At the Master’s Feet .. .. .. .. .. .. 32

A Hundred Years Ago .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 37

Unprepared Prose .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 39

What is to be done? .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 41

What’s up, Doc? .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 44

Walking with Taleban .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 47

Among The Slum Dwellers .. .. .. .. .. .. 51

Freedom versus Security .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 54

For us the hour has struck .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 57

The Agrarian Question .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 61

Great Expectations .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 65

Seize the Moment .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 69


6/316

The Storm Isn’t Over .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 72

It Is Not the Economy, stupid! .. .. .. .. .. .. 75

A Year After .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 77

Case of Failed Leadership .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 82

View From Margallah .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 86

Supreme Court Reborn? .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 88

Cohabitation is the only Answer .. .. .. .. .. 91

On To The Summit .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 94

Failure of Pakistan’s Leadership Class .. .. .. .. .. 99

Democracy In America .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 102

Keeping the Government Clean .. .. .. .. .. .. 107

The Road to Foreign Intervention in Afghanistan .. .. .. 111

The role of military - bureaucratic Oligarchy .. .. .. .. 117

A New Beginning ?.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 125

The Summit That Never Was .. .. .. .. .. .. 130

Where – If Not at the Summit? .. .. .. .. .. .. 134

Case of Failed Leadership .. .. .. .. .. .. 138

Moment of Truth .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 142

Visit to St. Quentin State Prison, U.S.A. .. .. .. .. 145

General Musharraf’s Greatest challenge .. .. .. .. 148

Sanctity of Oath Under 1973 Constitution .. .. .. .. 150

Rule of Law or Rule of Man .. .. .. .. .. .. 153


7/316

Restore Nation’s Core Values .. .. .. .. .. .. 158

Walking Along the Constitution Avenue .. .. .. 161

The Tragedy of Ambassador Zaeef .. .. .. .. .. 164

A Response .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 167

A Response; Muslims and the West What went wrong? .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 172

The Myth of Independence .. .. .. .. .. 177

Our Afghan Policy .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 181

Bhutto denied access to BadaBer US Base in Pakistan .. .. 186

Cry, the Beloved Afghanistan! .. .. .. .. .. .. 188

In Defence of Machiavelli .. .. .. .. .. .. 193

Conversation with Mr. Jinnah .. .. .. .. .. .. 197

Alone in the Ring .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 200

Conversation with Morarji Desai .. .. .. .. .. 204

Written in Despair .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 208

Witness to History .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 212

Not the Straight Path .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 216

Does Constitution Matter? .. .. .. .. .. 221

Ceremonial Tree Planting .. .. .. .. .. .. 225

Threat to the Islamic World .. .. .. .. .. .. 228

The End of Parliamentary Democracy? .. .. .. .. .. 232

Another False Dawn .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 236


8/316

Back to the Future .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 239

Next Stop Baghdad .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 245

America - A Dream Gone Sour .. .. .. .. .. .. 248

America really does not care about Democracy .. .. .. 252

In Search of a Constitution? .. .. .. .. .. .. 256

The Myth of Judicial Independence .. .. .. .. .. 260

There can’t be Two Suns in the Sky .. .. .. .. .. 265

The March of Folly .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 269

“Let Him Come With Me into Macedonia” .. .. .. .. 273

Save Margalla Hill National Park .. .. .. .. .. 277

Stray Thoughts .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 280

Our Moment of Truth .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 282

Back to 1919 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 285

“No General Dare Impose Military Rule in India” .. .. .. 289

Silence of the Lambs .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 294

Jinnah’s Concept of Good Governance .. .. .. .. 297

Looking for a Pony .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 301

Turkey’s Fateful Choice .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 305


9/316

1

Save the Margallah Hills National Park

Fifteen years age I experienced a strange feeling of liberation when I retired fromthe Civil Service of Pakistan. In search of Nirvana, my early morning walks inthe Margallah Hills, which always brought me in close communion with natureand created a feeling of exhilaration, inner peace, and tranquility, became longerand a lot more enjoyable. My attitude is quite simple. In the evening of my life, I just keep walking, knowing that some where in the dark there is a cliff. And Idon’t want to see it before I fall off. At seventy-six, I live a self-designed, semi-retired life which means that I keep busy only at tasks that have meaning for me,only at pursuits I enjoy. Walking and trekking is one of these pursuits. Somehow,no flat terrain, however, beautiful it may be, ever appeared so to me. I love

torrents, rocks, firs, dark woods, mountains, rough tracks to climb up and down,precipices by my side.

At the crack of dawn, seven days a week, with Wordsworthian enthusiasm,when my health permits and most of Islamabad is fast asleep, I wander about theMargallah Hills enjoying nature’s richness and its luxurious fecundity. Fatigue,frustration and disillusionment all drop away. In solitude among nature’s worksand away from the selfishness of man, I seek in the Margallah communion withnature and a place to lose myself. The scented and invigorating air and the sightof distant snows act like an elixir. The Margallah Hills, which form the backdrop

of Islamabad, comprise largely subtropical, dry, semi-ever green forest and pinetrees. No less then seventeen hundred species of flowering plants and fifty-threeferns occur in a diversity of habitats. In the spring, the Margallah’s are carpetedwith flowers such as tulips, dandelions, buttercups, poppies, and many annualand perennial plants. Once within their embrace, the Margallahs are designed bynature to dispel from the mind all thoughts and memories likely to sadden oroppress. To be in Margallah is not to be in Islamabad but to be suspendedmagically beside it, freed from the city’s tensions and protected from thebureaucracy. The Margallah is where people go to seek asylum from themandarins.

Unfortunately, although the entire area was declared a National Park by theFederal Government in 1980, it has been disfigured, decimated and defiled as aresult of activities which are prejudicial to its preservation, environmentallyhazardous and incompatible with the objectives of a National Park. A cementfactory was established in 1984 in the green area. Its requirement of raw materiali.e. limestone is quarried in the National Park. Consequently, the park’s features,its rock, soil, fauna and flora are being destroyed. Besides, the factory is creating


10/316

2

serious pollution. Hundreds of stone-crushers were installed in some of the mostbeautiful valleys in the National Park and rock-mining allowed. This has totallydestroyed the landscape, the natural geographical formations, archaeologicalfeatures and native plant communities. An industrial atmosphere has beencreated in an otherwise pristine environment by the noise of motors and

machinery, dynamite-blasting, heavy truck traffic, workers camps and pollutedstreams. Even Rawal Lake, a part of the National Park and the main source ofdrinking water for Rawalpindi, has not been spared and is threatened bypollution caused by human habitations in the catchment area and all around thelake.

The Margallah Hills Society has been campaigning, in the teeth of oppositionfrom powerful political elements and vested interests, against this deliberatedegradation and decimation of the environment of the National Park. Five yearsago, among other measures, the Society organized its first annual “Save the

Margallah National Park Long March” from Islamabad to Khanpur Dam. It wasa very enjoyable and memorable experience, which we repeat every year. Thisyear the walk is planned for November 28. Against heavy odds, we haveachieved some limited success. We have succeeded in stopping stone crushing inShahdara, Kalinjar, Sinyari and Shah Allah Ditta valleys. Regrettably, round theclock stone crushing is still going on in the area around the Nicholson monumentwith the blessing of the administration and the courts. It is a crusade that hasearned me many enemies.

I believe there are urgent moral and practical reasons to conserve the Margallah’s

natural resources, not only for the benefit of the people today, but also to meetthe needs and aspirations of the future generations. I raised this matter severaltimes with successive governments, Presidents and Prime ministers with little orno success. Regrettably, protection of the environment of Margallah HillNational Park did not figure on their agenda. Their priorities were different.Preservation of the Margallah Hills National Park was definitely not one of them.No wonder, while Margallah Hills were ablaze, the helicopter equipped for firecontrol in the National Park could not take off because the Cabinet Division andthe CDA were locked in a senseless dispute over who should pay the operationalcost. In this environment-unfriendly atmosphere, how could we protect theNational Park or for that matter anything else worth protecting in Pakistan? Thecountry had been hijacked by robber barons. The gamekeeper had become thepoacher. Asif Zardari was the chairperson of the Pakistan EnvironmentProtection Council. My writ petition for the protection of the Margallah Hill wasdismissed. The dykes of Law and Justice had collapsed. The lesson of history isthat when the dykes of Law and Justice break, Revolutions begin. And this isexactly what happened in Pakistan on October 12. The hour had struck. Comeththe hour, cometh the man. The hour had found the man, General Pervez


11/316

3

Musharraf – a modernizer who, I hope, will not hesitate to tell the people notwhere they want to go but where there ought to go, and who will, if necessary,resort to extreme measures in order, as Henry Kissenger once remarked, to savethe country from its own irresponsibility and drag it, kicking and quite literallyscreaming into the next millenium.

The advent of the new regime has rekindled our hope that after years of criminalneglect, urgent steps will now be taken to protect the Margallah Hills NationalPark, or whatever is left of it, against further degradation and decimation of itsfauna, flora and other physical, biological, historical and cultural resources.


12/316

4

The Illusion of Power

“Where ought the sovereign power of the state to reside”? Asked Aristotle.“With the people? With propertied classes? With the good? With one man, thebest of all, the good? With one man, the tyrant”?

I lay no claim to clairvoyance but two years ago when Nawaz Sharif was at thepeak of his power; this is what I wrote. “But ultimate power in Pakistan – that is,highest power over citizens, unrestrained by law – continues to reside where thecoercive power resides. Its power to abrogate the constitution, dissolve theparliament, and sack elected governments with impunity is not affected by therepeal of 58 2(b)… Nawaz Sharif’s biggest challenge in the days ahead, therefore,

will be managing relations with ‘le pouvoir’, the De facto sovereign, because it istheir will which is ultimately obeyed by the citizens… It is an ironical fact that inthe history of Pakistan no central government, whatever its mandate, has everlost power on the floor of the house in consequence of a vote of no confidencebrought against it. It is a unique feature of our stunted, pallid democracy thatparliamentary strength does not guarantee the stability or survival ofgovernment, and loss of power is invariably brought about by extraneousforces…. It would, therefore, come as no surprise if inspite of the Mandate ofHeaven – or perhaps because of it – Nawaz Sharif’s tryst with destiny ends in apuff of smoke” (Dream gone sour). Qui deus vult perdere, prius dementat.

(Whom the gods would destroy, first they make mad). This happened onOctober 12, when Nawaz Sharif’s senseless move to confront the army led to hisdismissal, arrest, incarceration and uncertain fate. “Short while ago, we saw himat the top of Fortunes’ wheel, his word a law to all and now surely he is at thebottom of the wheel. From the last step of the throne to the first of the scaffoldthere is short distance. To such changes of fortune what words are adequate.Silence alone is adequate.”

The army action against the Prime Minister has been challenged in the SupremeCourt and we are back to square one. The lines are drawn. A Right Royal battle isabout to begin. The country is once again under army rule for an indefiniteperiod. Is there something endemic in Pakistan that corrupts governments,subverts civil society and makes a coup every decade necessary? Pakistan facesthe same problem of orderly political succession today. The military has seizedpower four times since 1947, ruling directly or indirectly for more than half thelife of the country. Pakistan does have a law of political succession enshrined inits constitution, but it is honoured more in the breach than in observance. It isabrogated or held in abeyance whenever it suits ‘le pouvoir’. We had an elected


13/316

5

government on October 12 but when the axe fell on it, no tears were shedbecause it was thoroughly corrupt and discredited. The people were sick andtired of fake democracy. Commitment to democratic process in any case is quiteweak, if not non-existent in Pakistan. Not surprisingly, Pakistan has swungbetween fake democracy and dictatorship several times in the past and it does

not look if the pendulum will ever stop swinging from one extreme to the other.The future of democracy – in fact the future of Pakistan itself – will depend onthe role of the army in the political history of the country and how the problemof political succession is resolved.

It is now abundantly clear that whatever the constitutional position, in the finalanalysis defacto sovereignty in Pakistan (Majestas est summa in civas acsubditoes legibusque soluta potestas i.e. ‘highest power over citizens andsubjects unrestrained by law in the words of French Jurist Jean Bodin’) residesneither in the electorate, nor the Parliament nor the executive, nor the judiciary,

nor even the constitution – which has superiority over all the institutions itcreates. It resides, if it resides anywhere at all, where the coercive power resides.In practice, it is the ‘pouvoir occulte’ which is the ultimate authority in thedecision making process in Pakistan. They decide when to abrogate theconstitution; when it should be suspended; when elected governments shall besacked, and when democracy should be given a chance. The political sovereigntyof the people is a myth. To apply the adjective sovereign to the people in today’sPakistan is a tragic farce. Of course, if the term is used in the strictly legal sense,sovereign power under our constitution also resides in our parliament (nowsuspended). But as Dicey says, the word sovereignty is sometimes employed in a

political rather than in a legal sense, and in that sense that body alone issovereign in a state the will of which is ultimately obeyed by the citizens. This isclearly reflected in several judicial pronouncements made in a number of casesbeginning with Tamizuddin Khan’s case and ending with the cases arising out ofthe Dissolution of National Assembly by Presidents Ghulam Ishaq Khan andFarooq Leghari. In the process, the courts not only made judicial history. Theyalso unveiled the locus in quo of ultimate power.

‘From the country’s first decade, Pakistan’s Judges have tried to match theirconstitutional ideas and legal language to the exigencies of current politics.’ Sowrote Paula Newburg in her book ‘Judging the State’. ‘Their judgements haveoften supported the government of the day, presumably to retain a degree offuture institutional autonomy. This was their chosen path through the 1950’swhen there was no constitution, during the martial law period of the 1960’swhen the constitution was a moving target and under the mixed constitutionalrule of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto in the 1970’s when hopes for democracy outweighedits reality’.


14/316

6

The question of political succession and legitimacy has plagued the Muslimworld since the death of the Prophet (PBUH) in A.D 632. The Holy Quran issilent beyond saying that Muslims should settle their affairs by mutualconsultation. The Prophet had abstained from nominating a successor or layingdown any rules of political succession. This has inevitably led to uncertainty,

civil wars, wars of succession etc. In actual practice, the question of successionthroughout Muslim history was decided not by the Qazi but by the length of thecontenders’ sword and the sharpness of its blade. On the occasion of thedeposition of Caliph Qahir, the Qazi, who was sent to attest the documentsdeclaring the former’s abdication, was very upset when the caliph refused tosubmit. The Qazi said, “What use was it to summon us to a man who had notbeen forced to submit?” On hearing this, Ali Ibn Isa remarked, ‘his conduct isnotorious, and therefore, he must be deposed’. To this the Qazi replied. ‘It is notfor us to establish dynasties – that is accomplished by the men of swords. We areonly suited and required for attestation.’ Therefore, when Munir validated

martial law in 1958 or Anwar ul Haq sanctified Zia ul Haq’s military take-overand usurpation of power, they were both following well-established traditions ofMuslim history and were not innovating.

If any doubt remained as to the locus of ultimate power in Pakistan, it wasremoved when after the death of Zia ul Haq, the army decided, after internaldiscussion, not to impose martial law, and asked Ghulam Ishaq Khan, ChairmanSenate, to assume office as the Acting President. The constitution provided thatin the event of the death of the President, the Chairman Senate become theActing President. But this didn’t happen. The news was withheld for over three

hours. For three hours, the country was without a President and the PakistanArmy without its Chief. The question of succession had been foreseen in theConstitution. Its provisions were unambiguous. But the constitutional path wasnot automatically followed.

What conclusions should be drawn from this analysis of our political history?Briefly stated, these are:

1. That Army is a permanent reality in the politics of Pakistan and is likely toremain so in the foreseeable future. And the sooner we come to terms withthis reality, the better.

2. That the sword of Martial Law or political intervention by the Army, bywhatever name it is called, will continue to hang over all our democraticinstitutions as has been the case throughout our troubled political history.

3. That ‘Le pouvoir’ will continue to play its traditional role of a ‘referee’with a strong whistle in the political power game in Pakistan.


15/316

7

4. That the highest power over citizens, unrestrained by law, will continue toreside where the coercive power resides.

5. That no political institution in the country is strong enough to confront the

army and challenge its usurpation of power as it has solid popularsupport.

6. That it is unrealistic, naïve and quite unfair to expect the judges alone touphold the supremacy of the constitution and confront the state whennobody else is willing to do so. Who was there to defend the SupremeCourt when it was assaulted by goondas organized and led by thegovernment?

7. Ironically, it is the army and not any political institution which represents

the “General Will “, and the hopes, aspirations and dreams of the peopleof Pakistan today, “and yet this same day come four years - ! – But let thecurtains of the Future hang”.

8. And most important of all, that no political system, parliamentary,presidential or any other has any chance of survival if the army has norole in it or is not its integral part.

This, in short, is the lesson of our history. We must, confront our historydispassionately and courageously. We must stare it in the face, warts and all, if

we are to avoid past mistakes. Our history can be summed up in one sentence. Itis the sound of heavy boots coming up the stairs and the rustle of satin slipperscoming down. Will it ever be possible for Pakistan to break out of this viciouscycle of corrupt political governments followed by military dictators, whousurped power for power sake; had no radical socio-economic agenda for thewelfare of the common man, and left behind a splintered, ruined country torn byconflict, hijacked by thugs and robber barons, and in doubt about its future. Eachof them started with a blank cheque of goodwill and popular enthusiasm givento him by the people of Pakistan and each of them ended with a bankruptcy ofmoral and political support, leaving the country in worse condition then hefound it in. It is not that there are no other alternatives: the question is whetherPakistan has the capability to grasp one. I have no prescription to offer but, if weare to preserve the integrity, honour and dignity of our country, is it not time todevise and institute a form, a just, egalitarian, and durable system of rule so thatthe person, property and honour of its citizens – in short all the fortunes ofPakistan – are not periodically imperilled? There is nothing in the stars that saysthat either the American model of democracy or the British Westminster systemof parliamentary democracy is uniquely suited to every place on the globe.


16/316

8

Search for Legitimacy

At his news conference on February 16, President Clinton had said that a final

decision about going to Pakistan would be based on whether such a trippromised to contribute to stability in the region. Now that he has decided to dropin briefly on Pakistan, the Americans expect General Pervez Musharraf to stopextremists from waging war on its soil; put an end to what the Americans callreckless intervention in the problems of a neighbouring country, speed up thetime table for a return to democracy and work with India to curb the dangerousarms race. Obviously, some assurances must have been given to induce Clintonto visit Pakistan; otherwise, from the American point of view, the trip makes nosense. And in order to dispel General Musharraf’s impression that the visit wasan endorsement of his rule, the Americans made it clear that, “the President will

go to Pakistan because the Pakistani nation is a friend, not because he approvedof, or acquiesces in the government of General Pervez Musharraf. As a token ofthis friendship for the people of Pakistan, America’s most allied ally for the lastfifty years, President Clinton will spend about four hours in Islamabad after aspectacular five-day visit to India. Even Bangladesh must rank higher thanPakistan on the US scale of priorities because the President will spend a wholeday there. This is singularly ungracious and hurts.

Pakistan’s reaction is that of a jealous suitor who has just learnt that the object ofhis affections has arranged a date with a richer, more handsome man. In

American eyes, Pakistan is now like a silent movie star. She was good in her day.But the Americans have got the talkies now. Once we were the darling of theWest. Now we are on the periphery, marooned, rejected and discarded. This isnot the way the Americans treated us or talked to us when they were wooing us.In all such relationships, as we all know, there is the pursuer and the pursued.And there can be no doubt of the position we occupy today. This is whathappens when you have been in the harem too long. Oh! What a difference a halfa century can make. We are learning the perils of dreaming the hard way.

The equation between the United States and Pakistan, from the very beginning,has been one of friendship and alliance. On July 12, 1961, when President Ayubvisited Washington, he told the Joint Session of the Congress of the US:

“The only people who will stand by you are the people of Pakistan provided youare also prepared to stand by them. So, I would like you to remember thatwhatever may be the dictates of your commitments, you will not take any stepsthat might aggravate our problems or in any fashion jeopardize our security. Aslong as you remember that our friendship will grow in strength”. In his welcome


17/316

9

address, President Kennedy said that Pakistan was ‘a friend of immediacy andconstancy’, and observed that ‘Americans in private and in their public lifeappreciate the value of friendship and the constancy of friends. Fine words andnoble sentiments but they ring so hollow today.

Until 1962, the US continued to distinguish between a non-aligned India and theAmerican ally, Pakistan. Over the years, this distinction first became blurred andthen disappeared altogether. Now the Americans are openly saying that thepolicy of even-handed treatment of the two countries is a thing of the past.Pakistan has watched this transformation in American foreign policy withincreasing perplexity and dismay. Therefore, when the two leaders meet onMarch 25, on Pakistan soil, they would be like a pair of two ex-lovers – who hadbumped into each other by force of circumstances – one of whom is afraid ofwhat might happen if he lingered too long, or said too much, or said the wrongthings, or conveyed the wrong impression, or worse still, the jilted lover tried to

rekindle the old love affair, and therefore wants to get away as quickly aspossible.

General Musharraf is naturally very pleased with the White Houseannouncement about the President’s visit and, regardless of what the Americanssay, interprets it as a gesture of support for his government. “It indicates thelegitimacy of my government’s stand and gives credence to our aim to put thingright in our country”. The question of legitimacy has plagued all the militaryrulers of Pakistan because as Rousseau said, “however strong a man is, he isnever strong enough to remain master always unless he transforms his might

into right and obedience into duty”. This is not a new problem in the Islamicworld. The Holy Quran is silent beyond saying that Muslims should settle theiraffairs by mutual consultation. The Prophet had abstained from nominating asuccessor or laying down any rules of political succession. Islam also does notrecognize hereditary monarchy. In the days of Khilafat, the leader of the Muslimswas the Caliph. He was the defender of the Faith, the protector of the territory ofIslam and the Supreme Judge of the State. He was the successor to the HolyProphet as head of the community, Commander of the Faithful and leader andruler of all Muslims. So great was the prestige of the Caliph that a powerful rulerlike Buwahid Adud-al-Dawlah, made a pretence of complete submission beforethe puppet caliph, Tai’s whose name he used to maintain his own authority.Mahmud of Ghazni could threaten the caliph, but he too sought recognition fromhim. Even the mighty Seljuks who ruled the largest empire of the day, could notignore the Caliph’s position. No monarchy could consider itself legallyestablished without recognition by the Commander of the Faithful. When theemissaries of the Caliphs Abu Jafar Mansur Al-Mustanasir-Billah reached Delhi,it was a day of rejoicing for the newly established empire of Sultan ShamsuddinIltutmish who was receiving formal recognition from the Commander of the


18/316

10

Faithful. When the Caliph Mustasim was executed by Halaku Khan in A.D. 1258without leaving any heir, the Sultans of Delhi resolved their problem by thesimple device of continuing Mustasim’s name on their coins long after his death.

In actual fact, the question of succession was decided by the length of the

contender’s sword and the sharpness of its blade. Therefore, when Munirvalidated martial law in 1958 or Anwar ul Haq sanctified Zia ul Haq’s militarytake-over and usurpation of power, they were both following well-establishedtraditions of Muslim history and were not innovating.

Ayub faced the same dilemma. How was his rule to acquire legitimacy? Hecreated 80,000 basic democrats. Zia ul Haq held a fraudulent referendum onIslamization and when a small percentage of people voted for Islamization, heconcluded that it was a vote of confidence in him and on the strength of thisverdict he could rule for five years. The Caliphate disappeared long ago, but the

Caliph’s role is now played by Washington. No Muslim ruler, barring someexceptions, considers himself firmly in the saddle without recognition by theUnited States. The visit of the Caliph’s emissary was always a big event and wascelebrated as a day of rejoicing. Feroz Shah, one of the Delhi Sultans, received theCaliph’s emissaries with humility and prostrated himself in the direction of theCaliph’s Capital when he received the standards and robes. More or less thesame respect is shown by Muslim rulers, specially the corrupt ones, to emissariesof the President of the USA. A visit by the American President himself isconsidered as a dream come true and, in the eyes of the ruler at least, puts theseal of authority on his title to rule. However, sometimes such visits produce

unintended results and expedite the ruler’s fall as happened in the case of RezaShah Pehlavi, the King of Kings, after Carter’s visit to Tehran and his fulsomepraise of the Shah.

No American President and no court can confer legitimacy on General PervezMusharraf. He derives his title to rule from the ‘length of his sword and thesharpness of its blade’, and, ultimately, the Will of the People of Pakistan. That iswhere the sources of his strength reside.


19/316

11

Making the Rulers Accountable

On August 6, 1990, President Ghulam Ishaq Khan, in exercise of the power

conferred by clause (2) sub-clause (b) of article 58 of the Constitution, dissolvedthe National Assembly. As a consequence thereof, Prime Minister Benazir Bhuttoand her Cabinet Ministers ceased to hold office. I was sworn in as a FederalMinister on August 11, 1990. A few days later, I was allocated the portfolio ofAccountability to which President Ghulam Ishaq Khan attached the highestpriority. One of the grounds incorporated in the dissolution order referred tocorruption and nepotism at the highest level in the federal government, itsfunctionaries, statutory and other corporations, including banks working underits supervision and control.

The Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) carried out investigation of a largenumber of allegations of corruption, nepotism, favouritism, abuse of power, andauthority against the former Prime Minister Ms. Benazir Bhutto and herministers. The inquiry reports submitted by the FIA were closely scrutinized bythe Attorney General, Mr. Aziz Munshi, Mr. Sharif ud Uddin Pirzada, Mr. RafiRaza, and myself. Out of a large number of cases of misconduct within themeaning of article 4 of PPO no. 17 of 1977, six glaring cases against the ex-PrimeMinster were selected for further processing. Another nine cases were selectedagainst federal ministers and members of the National Assembly. The President,after satisfying himself that reasonable grounds existed for believing that acts of

misconduct had been committed, referred these cases to Special Courtsestablished under the law. The entire operation was completed in less than threemonths. The President was assured that the court proceedings would not takemore than two months. We had no doubt whatsoever about the outcome as allthe references were supported by unimpeachable documentary evidence.

However, once the references were filed in the courts, the entire process ofaccountability, the laws governing the process and the Special Courts establishedunder the law, came under a blistering attack. It was said that these were deadlaws and were unconstitutional; that they reversed the presumption of innocence;and that the references were made to Special and not Ordinary Courts. We triedto clarify that the process of accountability was being carried out under theexisting laws of the land, which basically dated back to the days of the formerPrime Minister late Mr. Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto. We felt confident that we were onstrong legal ground and looked forward to the early disposal of the cases withsome optimism. Then came the first bombshell from Lahore. The Special Court ofMr. Justice Munir A. Shiekh, returned the reference against Jehangir Badr, aFederal Minister, to the President, the referring authority, because in its opinion,


20/316

12

based on the scrutiny of the record alone and without hearing the parties, nocharge could be established. Nobody expected a Presidential reference, preparedby some of the best legal experts in the country after a good deal of care anddeliberation, to be dismissed in such a summary fashion, without hearing thereferring authority and without an opportunity having been given to produce

evidence in support of the charges. We were given a foretaste of what was tofollow.

Inspite of our best efforts to expedite the proceedings, none of the six referencesagainst the former prime minister, Ms. Benazir Bhutto could be decided one wayor the other for more than two years. Adjournments were frequently asked forand freely given. No opportunity was missed to delay the proceedings. Whyshould the respondents, all holders of public offices, have expedited theproceedings when they knew that time was on their side; that witnesses whocould prove the cases against them may forget, or lose interest out of sheer

disgust, or be won over, or – most important of all – the political situation mayundergo a favorable change? We soon realized that we had gotten off the maintrack. No wonder, there is a widespread popular belief that people who loot andplunder can get away with anything and that our law is neither swift, nor sure,nor powerful, nor just, but only a paper tiger. It is a standard practice to allowatleast one appeal on the final order or judgement. But we were horrified to learnthat every interim order passed by the Special Court in the course of the inquirycould be appealed against. The proceedings in the Special Courts could thus bebrought to a standstill, pending disposal of the appeal. For this, we had onlyourselves to blame. The laws were amended by us, so that we could appeal

against the order passed in the reference against Jehangir Badr. We were payinga heavy price for this amendment of dubious value.

We soon realized that, under our existing judicial system, it takes longer to get ananswer from a respondent in a reference case than it takes to send a man to themoon and bring him back. There are so many loopholes in the system that thefinal judgement could easily be avoided for years. On one pretext or another, Ms.Benazir Bhutto successfully evaded submitting her reply to the prosecution casemade out against her after a long, tortuous, and dilatory process in which somewitnesses were cross-examined for months. No wonder, some of them becamenervous wrecks.

Once Benazir Bhutto came back to power, all references were decided in herfavor with lightning speed. This did not come as a surprise. The objectivesituation had changed. Benazir Bhutto was now occupying the Prime Minister’shouse once again. Ghulam Ishaq Khan, the referring authority, had ceased to bethe President and the referring authority. In the midst of all this, our difficultieswere further compounded when Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif, who had been


21/316

13

elected as Prime Minister in October 1990, took a fateful political decision not toassociate himself with the process of accountability against Benazir Bhutto. Iused to send a weekly report to the Prime Minister explaining the progress, orlack of it, in each case and the problems we were facing both within and outsidethe courts. Not once did he ask me what I was doing or why the references were

not moving forward. He did hold one meeting but that was on the initiative ofChaudary Shujaat Hussain, the Interior Minister, who called me after a meetingwith the President and invited me to his house for a breakfast session. ThePresident had drawn his attention to the lack of interest in the references on thepart of the government and the supreme indifference shown by the PrimeMinister to the fate of these cases. After his meeting with the President, realitysuddenly hit Shujaat. With a rare clarity of vision and in almost prophetic words,Shujaat gave expression to his worst fears: “If Benazir Bhutto went scot-free andreturned to power”, Shujaat told me in Punjabi, “Bibi would hang us upsidedown. This calamity has to be averted at all costs”. Within twenty-four hours,

Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif called a meeting to discuss accountability. Thosepresent were: Choudhary Nisar, Aziz Munshi, the Attorney General, the lawsecretary, Choudhary Shujaat and myself. Each reference was reviewed in depth.Some decisions were taken to expedite the cases. I felt better. At last, things weremoving. Not long after, I realized how I had misjudged Nawaz Sharif. Little did Iknow that this was destined to be our first and last meeting on accountability?The word “accountability” was not uttered or heard again in the corridors ofpower as if it were a dirty word. President Ghulam Ishaq Khan was left to fightthe battle all by himself. With no support from the Federal Government, with anindifferent Prime Minister who showed little interest in the court battles,

everybody got the message loud and clear. The fate of the references was sealedand the result was a foregone conclusion. Nawaz Sharif thought he could someday offer to withdraw the references to win over Benazir to his side and enlisther support against the President. Fate willed otherwise.

What conclusions could be drawn from this failed experiment in accountabilityof the holders of public office in Pakistan? First and foremost, the people havelost faith in the integrity, objectivity and impartiality of the judiciary, thewatchdog charged under the constitution with the responsibility of keeping astrict watch on the excesses and arbitrariness of the executive and the conduct ofthe holders of public office. Secondly, accountability has been reduced to a farce.In the name of accountability, successive governments have hounded, harassedand persecuted their political opponents with the connivance of a corruptadministration and a pliant judiciary. On the other hand, acts of grossmisconduct, abuse of office, betrayal of trust, rampant corruption, and violationof oath of office by ministers of the ruling party go unpunished. Nobody in thiscountry, neither the government nor the opposition, nor the judiciary, isinterested in accountability as it is understood in the west. Thirdly and most


22/316

14

important of all, no matter how honest, upright, and well-intentioned you maybe, your chances of bringing the guilty under the existing judicial system arealmost nil. It is, therefore, an exercise in futility and a total waste of time, energyand public funds.

In South Korea, two former Presidents, both military men were sent to jail andprosecuted on charges of human rights violation and corruption. The former USCongressman, Rostenkowski, Chairman of the House, Ways and MeansCommittee, was sentenced to seventeen months in prison for abusing his officeand using employees to mow the grass at his summer house and to takephotographs at the wedding of his daughter. He was also accused of using hishouse office account to buy stamps, which he then converted to cash. As theformer Congressman, the once powerful law-maker and Chairman of theinfluential Ways and Means Committee stood up to hear the sentence, USDistrict Judge Norma Halloway rebuked him for he had violated the faith of his

constituents who had elected him from 1959 until 1994. “You shamelessly abusedyour position”, Judge Norma said. “Pretty petty stuff, people thought and prettyunlikely behavior for a figure as powerful and as capable of commandingsupport as Mr. Rostenkowski. But the case against him turned out not to be petty.He goes to jail for having abused his office. That is a flashing yellow light forevery office holder”, the New York Times commented.

Mr. Gingrich, the powerful House Speaker in the US was reprimanded and finedUS $ three hundred thousand for bringing discredit to the House by filing falseinformation with the ethics panel.

The fish, according to a Chinese saying, begins to rot from the head first.Accountability must therefore start from the top and applied first to the rulers,who should no longer feel they could get away with impunity. South Korea, Italyand United States have demonstrated that if there is a will it can be done. Thetragedy of Pakistan is that corruption at the summit of power is not hidden frompublic view - it is brazen, simply because those in power know by experiencethey will get away with it.

The country needs, and unless I mistake its temper, the country demandsruthless accountability. When will a Prime Minister in Pakistan go to jail forhaving abused his or her office? And when will one of our judges rebuke a PrimeMinister for “betrayal of trust” and call his or her conduct reprehensible whilesentencing him or her to prison, as Judge Norma did Senator Rostenkowski?That will be the finest hour of our superior judiciary.

Now that the political environment has undergone a favourable change, thenation is looking up to the Chief Executive, General Pervez Musharraf to make


23/316

15

good on his promise to arrange for the ruthless accountability of those whobetrayed the people’s faith; who bartered away the nation’s trust and whoplundered the country’s wealth. Unless the people’s representatives are strictlycalled to account now and those found guilty among them sent to prison,disqualified and prevented from capturing the Parliament, the entire democratic

process, if and when it is restored, will be reduced to a farce once again; cleanpolitics and an honest democratic government according to the constitution andlaw will remain an illusion.


24/316

16

Judging the State

For almost five decades, the superior courts in Pakistan had played unusually

important roles in determining the country’s fate, often superseding legislaturesand executives alike. Over the years, our courts have been engaged in definingthe limits of power of different organs of State. More often than not, it has been acase of stating the scope of authority of an executive functionary who, in thewords of Chief Justice Munir, has come to high office on the crest of a successfulrevolution, or in the language of Chief Justice Hamood ur Rehman is a usurper,or according to Chief Justice Anwar ul Haq had intervened only because it wasnecessary to do so in the larger interest of the nation.

The superior judiciary faced its first real test when the Governor General Ghulam

Muhammad, with the backing of the army, announced on 24th October 1954 thatthe constitutional machinery had broken down, and declared a state ofemergency, stating that the Constituent Assembly had lost the confidence of thepeople and could no longer function. Ghulam Muhammad effectively dissolvedthe assembly and reconstituted the cabinet. Maulvi Tamizuddin Khan, theSpeaker, challenged it in the Sindh High Court which decided in favour oflegislative supremacy. Chief Justice Constantine held that the ‘purporteddissolution is a nullity in law’. The Governor-General challenged the HighCourt’s authority to review his actions. The Federal Court, headed by JusticeMunir, held that the G. G’s assent was required to legalize assembly action and

dismissed most of the substantive issues raised in the High Court case. The lonedissenter was Justice A. R. Cornelius

In the Asma Jilani case, the main question for decision before the Supreme Courtwas whether the High Court has jurisdiction under Article 98 of the Constitutionof Pakistan (1962) to enquire into the validity of a detention order made undermartial law regulation No. 78 of 1971 and further whether the doctrine of asuccessful coup being its own justification enunciated in State v Dosso wascorrect. Both the regulation and the order had been promulgated after PresidentAyub Khan resigned and General Yahya Khan proclaimed Martial Law onMarch 25, 1969, abrogated the 1962 constitution and assumed the office ofPresident. The Supreme Court traced the history of events and came to theconclusion that neither Ayub nor Yahya Khan had any power to abrogate theConstitution, the military rule of Yahya Khan was illegal and the assumption ofpower by him an act of usurpation. In the course of his judgement, Chief JusticeHamood ur Rehman made it clear that judicial power “continues to vest in thecourts as long as the courts continue to exist”. The judgement was, however,given when Yahya was no longer in power.


25/316

17

Paraphrasing Ayub Khan, Justice Yaqoob Ali Khan concluded that the judgements in Tamizuddin Khan’s case, the 1955 reference, and Dosso’s case hadmade a perfectly good country…into a laughing stock, and converted thecountry into autocracy and eventually…into military dictatorship. He pointedly

criticized the abrogation of the 1956 constitution, observing that Iskandar Mirzaand Ayub Khan had committed treason and destroyed the basis ofrepresentation between East and West Pakistan. Now that all these usurperswere dead, it was easy for the justices to vent their decade-long frustration.Yahya Khan could be vilified. The poor man was under detention in theGovernment Guest House, Abbotabad.

On July 5, 1977 the late Mr. Z. A. Bhutto was ousted by a military coupengineered by his Chief of Army Staff, General Muhammad Zia ul Haq, whoplaced the constitution in abeyance, proclaimed martial law and assumed the

Office of Chief Martial Law Administrator. As was to be expected, thisacquisition of power was challenged in the Supreme Court. The case was heardby a bench of nine judges which rejected the arguments that legitimacy on a coupwas conferred by success. The action was held extra-constitutional. Imposition ofmartial law was, however, validated as it was found to be dictated byconsiderations of state necessity and public welfare. The CMLA was accordingly,held, entitled to perform all such acts and promulgate legislative measures,which fell within the scope of the law of necessity, including the power to amendthe constitution. The court, as an institution, had no power or jurisdiction tocircumvent settled conditional procedures and allow someone who could at best

be described as an executive functionary to tamper with the constitution. Thiswas an exercise of power without precedent. Not a single dissent was filed. Noappeal was made to what Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes called “thebrooding spirit of the law…the intelligence of a future date”.

In the years to come, the CMLA was to amend the constitution wholesale and tocite this judgement as an answer to all accusations of abuse of power. TheSupreme Court had retained for the superior courts the jurisdiction to examineall acts and measures of the military regime on the criterion of necessity. Butwhen it appeared that there was a cleavage between the regimes’ and thesuperior courts’ view of what was necessary, the courts lost. The regime used thesword supplied to it by the judiciary to strike at judicial power. In March 1981,General Zia promulgated the provisional constitutional Order 1981 (PCO) ‘forconsolidating and declaring the law and for effectively meeting the threat to theintegrity and sovereignty of Pakistan and because doubts have arisen…asregards the powers and jurisdiction of the superior courts’. As a consequence ofthis order, judicial powers were extinguished and 1973 constitution effectivelyabrogated. It placed virtually all powers in the hands of executive; provided


26/316

18

extensive emergency provisions to extend military rule and gave the President -CMLA retrospective powers to amend the constitution. All the orders andactions taken by the regime were considered to have been validly made, andnotwithstanding any judgement of any court, could not be called into question inany court on any ground whatsoever. Superior courts judges were required to

take a new oath to uphold the P.C.O; not all judges were invited to do so. TheSupreme Court, the guardian of the constitution, without any jurisdiction orpower, authorized the CMLA to dismantle the constitution brick by brick andchange it beyond recognition. The regime used the sword supplied to it by the judiciary to strike at judicial power. The PCO 1981 was the logical culmination ofthe process started in 1955 with the judgements in Tamizuddin Khan’s case, the1955 reference and Dosso’s case.

On May 29, 1988, Prime Minister Junejo was dismissed and the NationalAssembly dissolved by President Zia. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of

the Punjab High Court in declaring that the President’s action was invalid in law.The judgement was, however, given after the death of Zia. If the President’saction was invalid in law, why was the National Assembly not restored?Everybody in Pakistan knows why this was not done.

On August 6, 1990, President Ghulam Ishaq Khan dismissed Prime MinisterBenazir Bhutto and dissolved the National Assembly. The action of dissolutionwas upheld by the court. On April 17, 1993, President Ghulam Ishaq Khandismissed Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and dissolved the National Assemblyafter the Prime Minster had made what amounted to a declaration of war against

the President on Radio and Television. The Supreme Court headed by C. J.Nasim Hasan Shah appropriated the case in its original jurisdiction – and thendecided the case against the President (A decision which the honorable Chief Justice has since publicly regretted). Why was the President’s action againstBenazir upheld and how was it different from the case against Nawaz Sharif? Itis an open secret that the President had the full support of the COAS when hedismissed Benazir. He did not have this support when he dismissed NawazSharif. Once it became known that he did not have the support of the coercivepower, the party was over for GIK.

Recounting this “sad chapter in the history of Pakistan”, Justice Munir suggestedthat the judiciary faced a country itself on the brink of dissolution. “If the courtshad upheld the enforceable writs” he submitted, “I am sure that there wouldhave been chaos in the country and a revolution would have been enactedpossibly by bloodshed, a far more serious situation than that created by theinvalidation of a whole legal system which the new Assembly promised by theGovernor General in his Proclamation could have easily validated”. In Munir’seyes, the choice was not between the Assembly and the Governor General, but


27/316

19

between anarchy and order. He criticized the Sindh High Court for its blindnessto political currents, “completely shutting its eyes to the events that hadhappened which made it impossible for the writs to be enforced”…At momentslike these the law is not to be found in books; it lies elsewhere, viz., in the eventsthat have happened. Where the enforcement of the law is opposed by the

Sovereign power, the issue becomes political or military which has to be foughtout by other means and the courts espousing the cause of one party against theother merely prepare the ground for bloodshed”. Responding to criticism thatthe courts should have done more to forestall repression, Supreme Court JusticeDorab Patel asked pointedly, referring to past judgements, “how do you expectfive men alone, unsupported by anyone to declare martial law illegal”?

“From the country’s first decade, Pakistan’s judges have tried to match theirconstitutional ideas and legal language to the exigencies of current politics”. Sowrote Paula Newburg in her book “Judging the State”. “Their judgements have

often supported the government of the day presumably to retain a degree offuture institutional autonomy…judiciary in Pakistan has functioned at the behestof authority and has allowed itself to be used to further the interest of the stateagainst its citizens”.

What would have happened had the decisions of the superior courts beendifferent? And what would have happened had such decisions been ignored bythe army? Who could have enforced such judgements? Were the courts, therefore,right in establishing a practice of striking an unspoken bargain with those inpower so that its rulings would be obeyed and those in power would not feel

defied?

Once again, the army action to dismiss the Nawaz Sharif government andsuspend the National Assembly and Senate has been challenged in the SupremeCourt. In view of the pronouncements of the superior courts during the last fivedecades on such issues and the current ground reality, is it really necessary toaddress such sensitive “political questions” and fight such political battles in thecourts? In the words of Finkelstein:

“There are certain cases which are completely without the sphere of judicialinterference. They are called for historical reasons, “political questions”. Theterm applies to all those matters of which the court, at a given time, will be of theopinion that it is impolitic or inexpedient to take jurisdiction. Sometimes thisidea of expediency will result from the fear of the vastness of the consequencesthat a decision on the merits might entail”.

Why, as Finkelstein said, take up such sensitive “political questions” foradjudication at all? Isn’t it impolitic and inexpedient to do so? Why must the


28/316

20

courts sit in judgement on a successful revolution or coup d’ e’tat alreadysanctified by public approval? Why must the courts place themselves in a no-winsituation? Isn’t it unrealistic, naïve and quite unfair to expect the judges alone touphold the supremacy of the constitution and confront the army when nobodyelse is willing to do so? “No constitution”, Dicey wrote many years ago in his

“Introduction to the study of the Law of the Constitution” “can be absolutelysafe from revolution or from a coup’ d e’ tat”. Why fight a battle that, in thewords of chairman Mao, you cannot win?


29/316

21

A Thousand Years Ago

Why is it that throughout history the great empires of the past flourished and fell,

and why is it that some nations gain power while others lose it? All the GreatPowers, to paraphrase Bismarck’s famous remark, are travelling on the ‘streamof Time’ which they can neither “create nor direct”, but upon which they cansteer with more or less “skill and experience”. How they emerge at the end of thevoyage depends on their skill and experience or lack of it.

For the purpose of this analysis the story of the Muslim voyage on the “stream ofTime” begins a thousand years ago. If you had been alive in the year 999 on theeve of the last millennium, you would have inhabited a world dominated byIslam and Islamic civilization – the most widely dispersed civilization on earth at

the time, stretching from Cordoba in Spain to Lahore in present day Pakistan.The Abbasids had been in power since 750 A.D, but by the beginning of the 10thcentury their efforts to maintain political unity in the empire were faltering.Centrifugal forces were at work; Provincial governors and army commanderswere gaining autonomy.

Differences over succession to the Caliphate and the nature of authority in Islamafter the death of the Holy Prophet had split the world of Islam into Shia’a andSunni warring camps. The group that now forms the majority of the Muslims,the Sunnis, claimed that authority passed to the Caliphs, leaders whom the

Community designated and who exercised supreme judicial and executivepower. The Shia’as, however, believed that the Prophet’s authority now passedto his cousin and son-in-law, Ali, and to his descendants; for the Shia’as thevarious Imams are infallible because of their descent from Ali and from theProphet’s daughter, Fatima. In political terms, the Umayyads and the Abbasidswere Sunnis, while many of the dynasties that challenged their authority invarious parts of the Islamic world were Shia’as.

Shi’ism had become the leading form of popular resistance to the Abbasidempire. Ismailism was preached in Southern Iraq, Bahrain, Syria, Yemen, EasternIran and North Africa. Ismaili religio-political agitation led to a series of peasantand Bedouin rebellions in Iraq, Syria and Arabia called the Qarmatian movement.In the 920’s the Qarmatians attacked Kufa and Basra and threatened Baghdad,cut the pilgrimage routes, pillaged Mecca; and to the great horror of the Muslims,made off with the sacred Black Stone of the Ka’aba, which they kept for twentyyears. In North Africa, another offshoot of the Ismailis, founded the Fatimiddynasty which conquered all of North Africa and Egypt. The Fatimids werefollowed in this respect by the Umayyad dynasty in Spain. By 935 A.D the


30/316

22

Caliphate had lost control of virtually all of its provinces except the regionaround Baghdad. One military group, the Buwahidys, who were Shia’as, tookcontrol of Baghdad in 945. The Caliphs were allowed to continue in nominalauthority; indeed the Abbasid dynasty lasted until 1258 but they no longer ruled.The Abbasid empire had ceased to exist. Thus, from 950 to 1200, the political

unity of the Abbasid age was lost. The successor states were short-lived andprovincial in scale. As Baghdad dwindled, Samarqand and Bukhara, Nishapur,Isfahan, Cairo, Fez and Cordoba became the new capitals of Islamic civilizationand culture.

The Abbasids tried to transform the state from an Arab state into an Islamic state.With the transfer of the capital of the empire from Syria to Mesopotamia, powerpassed from the conquering Arab minority to the non-Arab majority, and non-Arabs were no longer discriminated against, as they had been under theUmayyads. The Abbasids prided themselves upon the fact that they had brought

into power Islam, which had been suppressed during the Umayyad period. Thework of collecting and reducing the Prophet’s traditions to writing was begunand completed during the Abbasid period. All the four great schools of Muslimlaw flourished under the early Abbasids and Muslim Law codified. Progress wasmade in almost all branches of knowledge- history, science, laws, etc. Thecumulative result of all this was that Muslim civilization came to maturity inBaghdad which became the foremost seat of culture and civilization in the world.

However, in the name of Islam, the immediate successors of the enlightened andprogressive Caliph, Mamun, persecuted the Shia’as, the Mutazilites and all those

who did not conform to the orthodox interpretation of Islam. In Gibbon’s wordsthe reformers “ invaded the pleasures of domestic life; burst into the houses ofplebians and princes; spilt the wine; broke the instruments; beat the musiciansand dishonoured with infamous suspicions the associates of every handsomeyouth”. Inevitably, persecution encouraged rather than repressed thedevelopment of several most remarkable religious and philosophical movements,notable amongst them was the Qarmatian or Ismaili propaganda, whichculminated in the establishment of the Fatimid Anti-Caliphate of North Africaand Egypt.

The second characteristic of this period was the ascendancy of the Turks, whothrough sheer force of circumstances, had become absolute masters of theAbbasid empire. It was an evil day for the Caliphate when Mu`tasim introducedthe Turkish element into the army. That the Turks had become the virtualmasters of the Caliph can well be illustrated by a story related by the author ofKitab-ul-Fakhri, Ibn-al-Tiqtaqa, who says “when Mu`tasim was appointed theCaliph his courtiers held a meeting and summoning the astrologers asked themhow long he (the Caliph) would live and how long he would retain the Caliphate.


31/316

23

A wit present in the gathering said “ I know this thing better than theastrologers”. Being asked to specify the time, he replied, “ So long as the Turksplease”, and everyone present laughed.

Because the religious, political and military achievements of the Islamic period

loom so large in the history of the world, the extraordinary cultural, scientific,technological, and commercial achievements are frequently obscured andoverlooked. Yet these advances were, in fact, of enduring significance tomankind as a whole. The destruction by the Mongols of many of theseachievements and of much of what the Muslims had accomplished was a tragicloss for the world as a whole.

This was a period of unrivaled intellectual activity in all fields: science,technology, medicine and arts. Unlike the Byzantines, with their suspicion ofclassical sciences and philosophy, the Muslims were enjoined by the Prophet to

seek learning as far as China, as eventually, they did. However, in the works ofGreek scientists stored in libraries in Constantinople and other centers of theByzantine empire, the Muslim scholars found a more convenient and easilyaccessible source of knowledge.

Bayt-al-Hikmat (House of Wisdom)

This was a remarkable assemblage of scholar-translators who undertook aHerculean task: to translate into Arabic all of what had survived of thephilosophical and scientific traditions of the ancient world and incorporate it intothe conceptual framework of Islam. Arabic was developed into the language of

international scholarship.

Paper MillThe setting up of a paper mill and the introduction of paper, replacingparchment and papyrus, was a pivotal advance which facilitated the invention ofprinting in the fifteenth century

Use of numeralsThe first great advance on the inherited mathematical tradition was theintroduction of numerals (which actually originated in India) which simplifiedcalculation of all sorts and made possible the development of Algebra.

Muhammed ibn Musa-al-Khwaraznli was the first to explore this and wrote thefamous Kitab-ul-Jabr Wa-ul-Muqabalah – the first book on Algebra.

Medicine

The entire canon of Greek medical works was translated into Arabic by Hunaynibn Ishaq, known to the West as Joanitius. Others prominent in Islamic medicinewere Yuhanna ibn Masawayn, a specialist in gynecology, and the famous Abu


32/316

24

Bakr Muhammed ibn Zakariya-al-Razi – known to the West as Rhazes.Ibn-al-Haytham wrote the Book of Optics, in which he gives a detailed treatment of theanatomy of the eye.

Engineering

Muslim Engineers perfected the waterwheel and constructed elaborateunderground water channels called qanats.

Agriculture

Important books were written on soil analysis, water and suitability of crops fordifferent soils.

Introduction of numerous fruits and vegetablesThe Muslims transformed the diet of medieval Europe by introducing suchplants as plums, artichokes, apricots, cauliflower, celery, fennel, squash,

pumpkin, and eggplant as well as rice, sorghum, new strains of wheat, the datepalm and sugarcane.

Islam in SpainFor Europe and Western civilization, the contributions of Islamic Spain were ofinestimable value. When the Muslims entered Southern Spain – which theycalled al-Andalus – barbarians from the North had overrun much of Europe andclassical civilization of Greece and Rome had gone into eclipse. Islamic Spainthen became a bridge by which the scientific, technological, and philosophicallegacy of the Abbasid period, along with the achievements of al-Andalus itself,passed into Europe.

European scene

During the same period i.e. on the eve of the last millennium, five centuries afterthe fall of the Roman Empire, Europe was a poor, backward and intensely ruralslum. All the grand, sophisticated cultures and large urban centers – Baghdad,Isfahan, Cairo, Fez, Delhi, Lahore and Cordoba were in the Islamic world. “ Formost Europeans in 999 and many decades later”, says William McCarthy of theCatholic University of America in Washington, “life was by our standards,almost unimaginably mean, dirty, unhealthy and short even for those at thepinnacle of society”.

Except in general terms, no one knew what time it was. Church bells providedthe only standards and they were inadequate.

Spices were in great demand because they “smothered the taste of the semi-putrefied food served up from the typical medieval kitchen”.


33/316

25

Danes, the most fastidious of all the Europeans, bathed once a week. TheEuropeans average was far less frequent. For ascetic reasons, many monasterieslimited bathing to five times a year – and some to Christmas only. Hygiene wasnot to appear in Europe for another half a millennium.

Today, the Western world is light years ahead of us. Oh, what a difference amillennium makes!


34/316

26

Pak – American Affairs A’ Amour

On May 1, 1947, Quaid-I-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah received two American

visitors at his Bombay residence. They were Raymond A. Hare, Head of theDivision of South Asian Affairs, Department of State, and Thomas E. Weil,Second Secretary of the US Embassy in India. He sought to impress on hisvisitors that the emergence of an independent, Sovereign Pakistan would be inconsonance with American interests. Pakistan, as a Muslim country would be abulwark against Soviet aggression. Mr. Jinnah coupled the danger of Sovietaggression with another menace that Muslim nations might confront. That was“Hindu Imperialism”. The establishment of Pakistan, Mr. Jinnah told theAmericans, was essential to prevent the expansion of Hindu imperialism into theMiddle East.

On the eve of Mr. Jinnah’s departure, from New Delhi for Karachi, Henry F.Grady, the American Ambassador to India, paid him a farewell call. Expressinggreat admiration for the United States, Mr. Jinnah reiterated his hope thatAmerica would assist Pakistan “in its many problems”. When Grady askedwhether Mr. Jinnah desired to indicate any specific matter, Mr. Jinnah repliedlaconically, “not at this time”. It did not take Mr. Jinnah long to realize thatPakistan faced a much stronger and wily adversary, determined to strangle it inthe crib; and that Pakistan stood alone in the ring. Faced with the prospects ofsuch a desperate situation, the Quaid-I-Azam turned to the United States for

assistance. This was the beginning of our romance with the United States.

Of the three pacts that Pakistan entered into only the Manila pact imposed treatycommitments on the US. The Mutual Defence Assistance Agreement was anarms supply agreement that contained no assurance of American support againstaggression. The US was not a signatory to the Baghdad Pact and it took care toemphasize that its participation in the Military Committee of the pact wasspecifically related to “communist aggression”. The Manila Treaty was vaguelyworded and it too restricted US obligations to “communist aggression”. Thewording of the treaty permitted unilateral determination by the US of its courseof action in the event of an appeal for assistance from another signatory. ThePakistani leaders were lulled by assurances given by Dulles and other Americanleaders that the US would take serious note of any threat to the independenceand territorial integrity of Pakistan. What American policy-makers had in mindwas publicly expounded by Secretary of State Dean Rusk several years later:

“The commitments do not bind us to any particular course of action. Most ofthem state that in the event of aggression we would act to meet the common


35/316

27

danger in accordance with our constitutional processes. How we act infulfillment of these processes will depend upon the facts of the situation. Somesituations require less participation on our part than others. What is fundamentalto the fulfillment of our obligations under these agreements is that we act ingood faith to fulfil their purpose”.

What then about solemn statements made by Presidents, Secretaries of State andDefence, and four-star Generals or even secret assurances given by them? In 1966,Senator Stuart Symington called on the State Department to clarify whether suchassurances constituted a “commitment”. The Senator insisted that the StateDepartment should not “square dance semantically” but provide astraightforward response. A senior State Department Official replied that if aPresident made one statement on one day and a different statement thefollowing day, he was free to do so unless their existed a constitutionally bindingconstraint on his “ability to make a shift”. The President could make a statement

one day and disavow it, if he chose, the following day. No commitmentsdevolved on the United States because of statements made by the President orhis assistants”, the State Department clarified.

We remained blissfully unaware of the determination of the Joint Chiefs of Staffthat in the event of war, the United States had no intention of rushing to theassistance of Pakistan, even if Pakistan were to be one of the countries attackedby Soviet Union. Our mistaken belief that the United States would rush to ourhelp if India attacked Pakistan was shattered when Indian troops crossed ourborder in 1971 and physically entered East Pakistan. America, our ally and long

time friend, did nothing to repel Indian aggression. We stood alone. Such are theharsh realities inherent in an unequal relationship.

There was unintended irony in the gift that John Foster Dulles sent to ourGovernor-General, the dying Ghulam Muhammad, some volumes on GeorgeWashington. The Farewell address of George Washington will ever remain animportant legacy for infant nations. In that notable Testament, the Father of theAmerican Republic cautioned that “an attachment of a small or weak toward agreat and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter”. Thestrong might have interests and objectives that could be of little real importanceto the weak; but once the latter submitted to acting the role of a satellite, it wouldfind it no easy task to avoid being used as a tool by the strong”. GeorgeWashington highlighted the dangers inherent in an unequal relationshipbetween a very strong nation and a weak nation and the folly of a weak nationsuccumbing to the belief that “real favours” would flow to it from the strongpartner. It is folly in one nation, George Washington observed, to look fordisinterested favours from another…it must pay with a portion of itsindependence for what ever it may accept under that character. No truer words


36/316

28

have been spoken on the subject. The irony in the gift, however, went unnoticedin Pakistan.

On July 12, 1961, when President Ayub visited Washington, he told the JointSession of the Congress of the US:

“The only people who will stand by you are the people of Pakistan provided youare also prepared to stand by them. So, I would like you to remember thatwhatever may be the dictates of your commitments, you will not take any stepsthat might aggravate our problems or in any fashion jeopardize our security. Aslong as you remember that our friendship will grow in strength”. In his welcomeaddress, President Kennedy said that Pakistan was ‘a friend of immediacy andconstancy’, and observed that ‘Americans in private and in their public lifeappreciate the value of friendship and the constancy of friends. Fine words andnoble sentiments but they ring so hollow today. In the real world, as every

student of international relations knows, there are no permanent friends, onlypermanent national interests.

As a token of friendship for the people of Pakistan, America’s most allied ally forthe last fifty years, President Clinton reluctantly agreed to drop in briefly onPakistan and spend about four hours in Islamabad after a spectacular five-dayvisit to India. Even Bangladesh must rank higher than Pakistan on the US scale ofpriorities because the President will spend a whole day there.

Pakistan’s reaction is that of a jealous suitor who has just learnt that the object of

his affections has arranged a date with a richer, more handsome man. InAmerican eyes, Pakistan is now like a silent movie star. She was good in her day.But the Americans have got the talkies now. Once we were the darling of theWest and could do no wrong. All that has now ended. Now we are in the dock.This is not the way the Americans treated us or talked to us when they werewooing us. All these years we have been day dreaming and are only nowbeginning to learn the perils of unequal relationship. When the two leaders meeton March 25 on Pakistan soil, they would be like a pair of two estranged lovers –who had bumped into each other through sheer force of circumstances – one ofwhom is afraid of what might happen if he lingered too long and, therefore,wants to get away as quickly as possible to avoid the embarrassment.

There can be no friendship between the strong and the weak. There can nofriendship between unequals neither in private life nor in public life. “The strongdo what they can”, the Athenians told the intractable Melians, “and the weakmust suffer what they must”. While welcoming President Clinton, who will nodoubt tell us what to do, we should remember what Alexi’s De Tocqueville saidon return from a long visit to America; “let us not turn to America in order


37/316

29

slavishly to copy the institutions she has fashioned for her self, but in order thatwe may better understand what suits us”.


38/316

30

I Love Alex

In the years I spent in the Service of Pakistan, I saw firsthand the manipulation,

dishonesty, treachery and self-seeking of politics. I saw ambitious, unscrupulous,unprincipled, persons climb to the top of the greasy pole and then slip. I sawmen and women moving in and out of the corridors of power-moths circling theflame of power. I saw the same persons stab their benefactors, switch sides andthen join their enemies. What a light it throws upon human nature andfriendship?

I also saw the mighty fall. How I wish I could reincarnate the loneliness andsorrow which enveloped these men once they fell from greatness. “I wasdiscovered as Viceroy of India from 39 to 46,” wrote Curzon. “then I was

forgotten, traduced, buried, ignored”. In a moment of self-pity Churchill told afriend, “Here I am after almost 30 years in the House of Commons after holdingmany of the highest offices of state. Here I am discarded, cast away, marooned,rejected and disliked.”

A lonely man can resist all temptations, except one: his craving for friendshipand loyalty. The people who are prone to fall on their knees to do you honorwhen success is with you will be the first to shun you and throw the stone ofmalice when failure settles upon your head. You will soon find that the oneabsolutely unselfish friend that man can have in this selfish world, the one that

never deserts him, the one that never proves ungrateful or treacherous is his dog.Your dog will stand by you in prosperity and in poverty, in health and insickness. He will sleep on the cold ground, if only he may be near his master’sside. He will kiss the hand that has no food. He guards the sleep of his paupermaster as if he were a prince. When all other friends desert, he remains. Whenreputation falls to pieces, he is as constant, as a beleaguered Bill Clinton foundout, in his love as the sun is in its journey through the heavens. He does notreproach you even if you go astray. He does not sit in judgement on you. Iffortune turns against you and you become friendless, homeless and an outcast,the faithful dog asks no higher privilege than that of accompanying you, toguard you against danger, to fight against your enemies.

At the battle of Soor, Frederick the Great, King of Prussia lost his personalbaggage which had been caught by enemy patrols. But more personallysaddening was the capture-or, as he apprehended, killing of his beloved whippetbitch, ‘Biche’ . He loved Biche and Biche loved him. And Biche was not dead. Shewas returned by her captors to Frederick’s’ camp a few miles south-west of thebattlefield and quietly introduced to his quarters while the king sat alone at his


39/316

31

table writing letters, unaware. Biche leapt on to the table and put her paws roundhis neck; and Frederick, the first soldier of Europe, was seen to weep.

“Cover the dog, he is shivering”, were Frederick’s last words as he awoke atmidnight on 16th August 1786, at San Souci. The dog was indeed shivering, lying

on the ground near Frederick’s bed watching his dying master. At twentyminutes past two in the morning of 17th August the great king died with hisbeloved Biche by his bedside.

Another famous dog was Blondi, Hitler’s Alsatian bitch. It was Blondi whoshared with his master the honor of inspecting the Flak crew. Blondi was Hitler’ssole companion in his bunker at Werewolf. The big dog would jump throughhoops, leap over a six-foot wooden wall, climb up a ladder, then beg at the top.Blondi did not get along with Evas’ two little terriers. Generally Blondi wasexcluded from intimate sessions except on the rare occasions when Hitler asked

Eva to banish her two darling so his dog could have a moment in the limelight.

Blondi was always invited to the famous tea sessions and Hitler’s birthdayparties and put through her paces. She begged, she played schoolgirl, she evengave a concert and the more her master praised, the more intensely she sang!

After the army bomb plot, Hitler said, “My life is full of sorrow, so heavily ladenthat death itself would be salvation”. And then chiding Blondi for disobeyinghim, he said, “Look me in the eyes, Blondi. Are you also a traitor like theGenerals of my staff.”

On April 29 when the Russian ground forces were driving toward the bunker thefirst to die was Blondi, Hitler’s faithful dog. Hitler passed out phials containingCyanamid. He sent for a doctor who dutifully poured the liquid down the throatof Blondi the dog Hitler adored. It killed her. There were tears in Hitler’s eyes.He did not want Blondi to fall into Russian hands.

We have a beautiful dog. We call him Alex. Alex has lit up my life in a way thatnobody has ever done. I love Alex. So does my grandson, Salman Khan.

“if you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous, he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and a man.”

Mark Twain.


40/316

32

At the Master’s Feet

Professor Toynbee was invited by the Peshawar University to spend a month on

the campus, in active contact with students and members of the faculty andduring that period to deliver a series of lectures on a subject of his own choice.The year was 1959. I was Deputy Commissioner, Peshawar. Once a week,Professor Toynbee would do me the honour of coming to my house on Fort road,accompanied by my friend Abu Kureishi, who was his guide and constantcompanion throughout his stay in Pakistan.

Professor Toynbee was a very simple, unpretentious and unassuming man. Oneday, in his baggy trousers and wearing a half-sleeve shirt, he went to have dinnerwith colonel Yusuf, who was then Resident Tribal Affairs. Next day, Professor

Toynbee told me how embarrassed he was and how he felt almost naked whenhe saw his host, dressed in a dinner jacket. There were just the two of themseated at a long table meant for over a dozen persons. Dinner was served byliveried waiters wearing white gloves. Toynbee thought, on the colonel’s death,he should be stuffed and kept in Government House Peshawar as a relic of theRaj.

Meeting Toynbee was like meeting history. Having a conversation with him wasa little like getting to volley with John McEnroe. Trying to keep up was hopeless,but it was exhilarating just to be on the court with him. Of Toynbee, Allan

Nevins wrote, “Standing on his Everest, he is more than a historian; he is a greatdeal of a Prophet”.

Over endless cups of green tea, Toynbee would survey the past, produce a bird’s– eye – view of mankind’s history with a view to gaining greater insight into thepresent. From this point on, it is Toynbee in person.

For the great non-Western majority of human race, being modern, scientific anddemocratic are talismans for acquiring those novel and overwhelming forms ofpower that have enabled the West temporarily to dominate the world. But whydoes any non-Western wish to go Western? I could give a short answer in thefour words of a proverb; “nothing succeeds like success”. In A.D. 1661, thisWestern society was just one among half a dozen societies of its kind that hadarisen in the old world. It is true that, by that date, the West had won thecommand of the ocean, and had thus made itself the potential master of thewhole surface of the planet. The Western peoples had already discovered andmonopolized the new world. But in the ol

Pakistan a Slave State Vol - 4

Documents

Transcript of Pakistan a Slave State Vol - 4